Autori u ovom osvrtu samorecenziraju tekst o Foucaultovoj dvorani ogledala u kojemu nastoje razviti projekt fukoovske geoepistemologije. Najprije propituju sam postupak samorecenziranja kroz problematizaciju teksta kao predmeta analize i značenja samog postupka prepoznajući u njemu obrazac priznanja koji je Foucault utvrdio kao tipičan za zapadnu civilizaciju. Nakon što su prihvatili izazov samokritike, autori svoj povratak problemskom području geoepistemologije i pojmu triedra kao analitičkog oruđa izvode najprije na razini kritike teorijsko-metodologijskog okvira. Pritom uočavaju nedovoljno jasno razlučivanje vlastitog od Foucaultovog pristupa, nedovoljnu preciznost vlastite geoepistemološke analitike te nedovoljnu pažnju koju su u njezinim okvirima posvetili genealogiji praksi moći i znanja. Zatim se usmjeravaju na pojedine sadržajne nedostatke koji su obilježili začetak njihova istraživačkog projekta, a očitovali su se u nedovoljno jasnoj konceptualizaciji pojma života i podrazvijenosti triedara spacijalizacije s obzirom na problematike guvernmentalnosti i biomoći, jezika te samog ludila. Priznajući mogućnost da su se, pristajući na Foucaultovu igru, uhvatili u "triedar Foucault" kao cirkularni okvir tumačenja, autori u zaključnom dijelu osvrta nude sistematizaciju svojih ocjena te iznose prijedloge za daljnji razvoj projekta fukoovske geoepistemološke analitike. In this review, the authors self-review the text about Foucault’s hall of mirrors, in which they try to develop the project of a Foucauldian geo-epistemology. First, they question the process of self-review – through the problematization of the text as an object of analysis and the meaning of the process itself, recognizing in it the apparatus of confession which Foucault established as typical for Western civilization. After accepting the challenge of self-criticism, the authors return to the problem area of geo-epistemology and the concept of the trihedral as an analytical tool, first at the level of criticism of the theoretical-methodological framework. In doing so, they observe insufficiently clear delineation of their own approach from Foucault’s, insufficient precision of their own geo-epistemological analysis, and insufficient attention that they paid within this framework to the genealogy of concrete practices of power and knowledge. The authors then focus on specific deficiencies that marked the beginning of their research project and were manifested in an insufficiently clear conceptualization of the concept of life, as well as the underdevelopment of the trihedral of spatialization regarding the issues of governmentality and biopower, language, and madness itself. Acknowledging the possibility that, by agreeing to play Foucault’s game, they got caught in the "Trihedral Foucault" as a circular framework of interpretation, in the concluding part of the review the authors offer a systematization of their evaluations and present proposals for the further development of the project of Foucauldian geo-epistemological analytics.